[Spacewalk-list] Repo update question

[Thomas Foster]

You can do that too.  You don't have the server subscribed to both channels
do you?
On Aug 16, 2013 8:42 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos" <dyioulos at onpointfc.com> wrote:

> On Friday 16 August 2013 8:24:05 am Thomas Foster wrote:
> > Did you clear the metadatafrom the client when you added
> > the new package?
> >
> > On Aug 16, 2013 8:20 AM, "Dimitri Yioulos"
> <dyioulos at onpointfc.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday 16 August 2013 4:33:21 am Tomas Lestach wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >
> > > > > From: "Dimitri Yioulos" <dyioulos at onpointfc.com>
> > > > > To: spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:48:41 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Spacewalk-list] Repo update question
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm continuing to tweak and/or try to bend
> > > > > Spacewalk to my will.  This morning, I ran "yum
> > > > > update" on one of my servers, and noticed that
> > > > > there was a Samba update (from Sernet).  This
> > > > > wasn't reflected in the Samba channels I created in
> > > > > Spacewalk, which is OK, since I have these channels
> > > > > set to update every Saturday afternoon, the first
> > > > > of which comes up this Saturday. But, to make sure
> > > > > everything works as it should, I updated the
> > > > > channels manually from the CLI.  Worked fine.
> > > >
> > > > As I'm reading the post, I understood your setup in
> > > > the way your servers are subscribed to the Sernet
> > > > repo and to the Spacewalk channels with the same
> > > > content as the repo. This scenario does not have much
> > > > sense, if you already manage some content in
> > > > Spacewalk, you can safely remove the original repos
> > > > from your clients.
> > > > But I probably misunderstood. In that case, please
> > > > ignore this paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > > Now, as per help through an earlier post, I created
> > > > > cloned channels of the original Samba channels so
> > > > > as to be rid of the x86_64 packages, which I don't
> > > > > use, and which without being rid of would cause the
> > > > > updates to my machines to fail.  Also works fine.
> > > >
> > > > I mean you can set excludes for repo-sync, so it does
> > > > not sync packages you do not want.
> > > >
> > > > > BUT, I noticed after the manual update that my
> > > > > machines weren't seeing the new Samba packages.  It
> > > > > was only after I 1) deleted the previous version
> > > > > packages in the original Samba channels, and 2)
> > > > > deleted the packages in the cloned Samba channels,
> > > > > that my machines now saw that updates were
> > > > > available.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand from the previous post that I have to
> > > > > accomplish 2) either manually or via a script.  My
> > > > > question though (and sorry it's taken me so long to
> > > > > get here) is should newly updated packages replace
> > > > > older ones in my original Samba channels (or any
> > > > > channels, for that matter), or must I go through
> > > > > this two-step process each time an update occurs?
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to leave the previous versions of packages
> > > > in the channels as well. There's no need to remove
> > > > them. They do not harm anything and you then have the
> > > > option to downgrade to the older version, if the new
> > > > wouldn't work for you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Tomas Lestach
> > > > Red Hat Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply, Thomas.
> > >
> > > You're right about removing the original yum repos from
> > > the clients.  I'll do that once I'm sure that I have
> > > updates from Spacewalk working properly.
> > >
> > > But, that's not my issue.  It was suggested to me in a
> > > previous post that, to make the Sernet Samba updates to
> > > my 32-bit boxes work, I needed to create a clone of the
> > > channel so as to filter out 64-bit packages (see this
> > > thread:
> > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/2013-Aug
> > >ust/msg00017.html). That does work.  However, the most
> > > recent updates didn't appear to my hosts until I
> > > deleted the older ones from the channels (for CentOS 5
> > > and CentOS 6 boxes) and their clones.  Is this the
> > > behavior I should expect?  I have no problem leaving
> > > one previous update in the channels, but can see how,
> > > over time, the channels can get clogged up with old
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > Dimitri
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Spacewalk-list mailing list
> > > Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
>
> Thomas,
>
> Do you mean as in "yum clean all"?
>
> Dimitri
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20130816/e0df4881/attachment.htm>